I have a web server currently running on dual 1.4's all-inclusive. By all-inclusive I mean the web server, the db, etc are all hosted on it. We're looking to move this to be the dedicated DB server and move the web server off. Currently we have a dual 600 machine with 1GB of RAM - will this be enough to serve up a medium-sized web site (we're talking lots of DB queries on probably a peak of 100,000 page views/day -- typically closer to 5,000 page views/day though).
So is the dual 600 box going to suffice as a web server calling the dual 1.4 box for the DB?
BTW - both of these machines are Windows based running IIS and MSSQL.
If your business is peaking at 100,000 hits a day, you should be able to afford more then a dual 600mhz. If you cant, your doing something wrong. Invest $1000 and get something you can grow on, and upgrade to allow you to grow even further.
Hmph - okay, here are answers to some of the skepticism and questions:
fac3less: I'd love to be running Apache - if it were up to me, I'd run Apache on FreeBSD for everything. Unfortunately it's not up to me - there are plenty of reasons we choose Windows (from some of the higher-ups "if its free, it can't be good" feelings, to the fact that all our apps for the web are written in ASP.NET and porting them would be a huge pain (and no - mono isn't an option at this point), to the fact that we run other things through these servers which depend on Windows, etc - we have our reasons).
The reason we're looking to put the second server up is for efficiency and security - we'd like to pump everything we can out of our existing technology. Moreover, we carry some pretty sensitive (not *extremely* sensitive, but enough to be worried) data on our SQL server and we'd like to move that behind a separate firewall with access only from the web server - the added layer of security. This will also protect us from possible flaws in IIS that are found before patches arise and allow users to take control. Basically, our efficiency is enhanced and our security is enhanced which seems like a win-win situation to me (assuming dual 600's can deal with this stress: I personally think it can, but I've been trying to defer to the judgement of people with more experience on this type of system).
WinApp: This isn't a matter of being able to afford something - we can. It's a matter of learning to use our resources for the best possible configuration. Currently, the dual 1.4's have been running well and handling our load fine, but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve (for the reasons listed above). But at least we should test this theory out without spending hard cash. Furthermore, maybe I'm just really cheap but I feel that you should do whatever possible to cut costs (keep costs low) no matter what is happening with your bottom line.
I'd probably say setup the Dual 600 with a Linux (or BSD although that's not my preference but it seems like it's yours) install and install MySQL on that. Then leave the current server as a Windows box and connect to the Linux based MySQL server. Teamed with MySQL-Max I'd say you'd be fairly safe.
This would also mean you could implement a firewall on the Linux box and lock down access to just your Windows server. I guess if they are right beside each other you could stick a second NIC in the Windows box and simply setup a private LAN between the DB and Web servers. That'd probably be the most efficient and secure overall (ignoring the Windows factor ).
First off it seems like you have a limited understnding of servers.
It is accepted Apache is a faster, more secure, lower cost server that takes less resources.
There are ports of Apache for windows packaged in MSI distributions on the Apache.org website. You can get an SSL version of apache for windows too (free).
Mor fun facts you should tell your boss:
If apache is a bad server why do 75% of businesses run their mission critical apps on apache servers?
for IIS you pay per processor. (and per year usually too)
You can run ASP.net software on an Apache webserver with very little configuration (almost none). In addition you can run CGI,perl,jsp,vb,etc.
That system you described will definately support your needs if you choose to run an apache server with a good database such as MySQL (which is also free and avalible for windows mysql.com)
If you decide on IIS you will need a much faster system such as dual AMD 2600+ MP's, 1GB DDR ram, Mirrored SCSI hard drives. Keep in mind that a server that handels that workload in IIS can handel 1 million hits a day with apache.
If you want to waste money go ahead... PS could i get a job there? I could use an inflated salary too.
Well, I'm not going to turn this into a flame thread about whether or not I know about servers and whether or not Apache > IIS && MySQL > MSSQL. I can tell you are mistaken with what I have said - or perhaps that I don't know how to correctly post on a forum to get my point across, because I'm sure I know quite enough about servers. Unfortunately, I've never run any benchmarks so I don't know speed comparisons. I guess I'll have to create a benchmarking program and test it myself. At first I thought that I could maybe ask people who have already performed these tests - apparently you guys don't care enough to actually test though.
Anyways, I understand plenty about servers and databases and such - don't worry about that. I also have feelings about which OS/server/db I would run if I had a choice (hint: they're not Win/IIS/MSSQL).
Amazingly, you guys unfortunately haven't helped me much. So I guess I'll just spend a day this weekend coding up an informal benchmarking tool and let you all know how it goes.